Call your congressman today and tell him the most needed legislation in America is a symbolic resolution denouncing idiotic symbolic resolutions. Like this one:
Republicans in the US House of Representatives called a vote on Tuesday to reaffirm ‘In God We Trust’ as the national motto.
Action on the symbolic resolution, crafted by Republican Representative Randy Forbes and sure to appeal to the party’s religious conservative base, came as the campaign for the November 2012 elections heated up.
The worst part is that the GOP once recognized that “symbolic resolutions” are a stupid waste of time—and were willing to do something about them:
After seizing control of the House in November 2010 elections, Republicans adopted new rules forbidding most symbolic resolutions on grounds that such measures are a waste of time.
Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor cited the new rules in May as the reason the chamber would not pass a stand-alone measure marking the US raid that killed al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.
Forbes defended taking action on the measure but pointing to “rogue court challenges” to religion in the public sphere and citing Obama’s November 2010 speech in Jakarta where he inaccurately said “E Pluribus Unum” – “out of many, one” – as the national motto.
Sometimes I wonder if our elected representatives have brainstorming sessions in which they dream up ways to make their constituents regret sending them to Congress.
(Via: League of Ordinary Gentlemen)
November 2nd, 2011 | 11:06 am
[...] measure to “reaffirm” the use of “In God We Trust” as our national motto is a stupid chunk of boob bait to Religious Right voters. Well, he didn’t call it “boob bait.” I did. And I mean [...]
November 2nd, 2011 | 12:08 pm
Hello, Mr. Carter,
Most of the time I clearly see the nail you hit on the head with your commentary. Not so this time.
Why the intensity, not only yours but also in Tod Kelly’s article you provided a link to? What real harm is there in symbolic resolutions? I can see how in this case the resolution might understandably be considered a shallow political ploy to appeal to a significant voting block, but it is not like only conservatives do such things. That such things are going to happen is inevitable. Why the excitement?
And why the link to Rod Dreher’s article, the point of which is to criticize Herman Cain, in which he makes the absurd assertion that Cain “knows nothing about the world.”? Cain has successfully turned around failing enterprises, which is vastly more than the current president has ever done. That this is so has become painfully evident during his presidency. If Dreher is referring to foreign policy experience, Cain could do a better job with that uninformed and half asleep than Obama has done.
November 2nd, 2011 | 12:30 pm
harry What real harm is there in symbolic resolutions? I can see how in this case the resolution might understandably be considered a shallow political ploy to appeal to a significant voting block, but it is not like only conservatives do such things. That such things are going to happen is inevitable. Why the excitement?
You partially answered the question for me. The reason we should oppose these time-wasters is that Congress has limited amount of time each session and should waste none of it on a “shallow political ploy to appeal to a significant voting block.” Such things are not inevitable, as the GOP itself once acknowledged.
And why the link to Rod Dreher’s article, . . .
That’s not a link to Rod’s article but a trackback notice saying that he has linked to this post.
November 2nd, 2011 | 1:08 pm
Hello again, Mr. Carter,
Apparently they were wrong about that. ;o)
Seriously, if such resolutions are really consuming more time than they are worth then I agree with you. But even if the “In God We Trust” resolution is in fact nothing more than an insincere political ploy (which I doubt is the case entirely – surely some members of congress are quite sincere about it), there is some value in reminding Americans that it is in God that we must trust. I wonder if the value in that is worth a very limited amount of time? It seems to me that we have placed our trust in all the wrong people, and that is to a large extent exactly why we are in the mess we are in. Maybe that is worth mentioning in an official way.
November 2nd, 2011 | 1:11 pm
From “The American Commonwealth,” by James Bryce (1888):
“Bills are frequently brought into the House proposing to effect impossible objects by absurd means, which astonish a visitor, and may even cause disquiet in other countries, while few people in America notice them, and no one thinks it worth while to expose their emptiness. American statesmen keep their pockets full of the loose cash of empty compliments and pompous phrases, and become so accustomed to scatter it among the crowd that they are surprised when a complimentary resolution or electioneering bill, intended to humor some section of opinion at home, is taken seriously abroad.”
November 2nd, 2011 | 1:25 pm
harry Apparently they were wrong about that. ;o)
Sadly, the GOP tends to forget about a lot of things they once stood for once they get in power. Remember when they were against increases in government spending? That quickly changed once they realized that they could spend taxpayer money to help win them votes in the next election.
. I wonder if the value in that is worth a very limited amount of time?
The problem is that the resolution is reminding us to trust a Fill-in-the-blank God. If they were telling us to put our trust in the actual, living, trinitarian God they would be violating the Constitution (as the SC interprets it). So we are asked to pay homage to a Deistic entity that we can view as whatever god we happen to worship.
(I have a longer rant against civil religion here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/08/11/advocating-a-not-so-civil-religion/)
November 2nd, 2011 | 2:18 pm
This reminds me of the “butterfly” bill that came before my committee when I was in the legislature of my state. A teacher had the bright idea that her 6th grade class should have as a class project getting a law passed. After some deliberation they proposed a bill to make some butterfly or another the “state butterfly” of Colorado, and they convinced a legislator to actually carry the bill. When it got to my committee I lead a charge against it for much the same reason Joe explains. Except this was worse. A resolution is just a statement of collective opinion. It carries not force of law. Had it passed, this bill would have become law. Frankly, I was offended by this frivolous and insouciant approach to law, and I got the bill killed. My reward: Icy stares from the adults and rivers of tears from the students. I still think I did the right thing.
November 2nd, 2011 | 3:01 pm
[...] Note: Earlier today I denounced as a waste of time the attempt by Republicans in the House to reaffirm ‘In God We Trust’ as the national motto. A reader thoughtfully asked whether there is some value in reminding Americans that it is in God [...]
November 2nd, 2011 | 3:13 pm
Hello, Mr. Carter,
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments in Advocating a Not-So-Civil Religion at the link you provided. I certainly agree with Michael Novak’s comment which you cited there, that Christianity is a barrier against totalitarian government that secularism is not.
I would add that the problem with godless secularism is just that: it has no god. Theists, deists and everybody else who sees that there is some kind of transcendent, superior being, while they may not agree on the true nature of God, do agree that He is not one of us.
Secularism, of necessity, makes men gods and acknowledges no authority above these “deified” men. So it inevitably ends up insisting that men render unto Caesar that which belongs only to God. I think that is what the church of the current age will eventually be known for: rendering unto Caesar authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God, and being so very slow to realize that that is what it was doing. This state of affairs is no less a threat to Christianity than the situation historian Thomas Madden described as follows:
Christianity needs to realistically respond to the situation it currently finds itself in or simply succumb to the idolatry inherent in submitting to rule by secular “atheocracies.” Anybody who is vaguely familiar with the Old Testament realizes what a threat to God’s people idolatry was and how vehemently God disapproved of it. The Old Testament is an account of God slowly forming a people who worshiped the One True God. The New Testament reveals that God’s plan is for all humanity to worship the One True God. It took the blood of many martyrs to eventually be rid of idolatry under the New Covenant. It is back with a vengeance.
Pope Urban II addressed the multitudes with a Spirit-filled exhortation for them to respond to the Muslim threat realistically. Reportedly the crowds would spontaneously shout in unison a Spirit-filled response: God wills it!
We need another Urban II exhorting the faithful to address the current threat realistically. Luckily, we still have the means to realistically respond to the situation using peaceful political means. The longer we wait to get started the less likely it becomes that that will be possible. After all, as Novak points out, secularism inevitably leads to totalitarianism – which does not allow itself to be peacefully replaced with something else. His observation reminds one of how God, in the Old Testament, would hand his people over to bondage or oppression by the nation whose false god they worshiped. The last time I checked, the God of the Old Testament was still God.
The more I think about it, the more appropriate it seems that we have a resolution clearly stating that it is “In God We Trust.” Even though, as you said, “we are asked to pay homage to a Deistic entity that we can view as whatever god we happen to worship,” at least we are paying homage to a Deistic entity that is definitely not one of us.
November 2nd, 2011 | 3:42 pm
Brilliant post, Joe. Every time a politician invokes “God”, we should ask him, “Sir, which god do you mean?”. Is it the deistic god of the state? The hippie Jesus god of liberals? Al Sharpton’s Jesus? Jerry Falwell’s Jesus? Allah? Or can I just worship any god I pick?
November 2nd, 2011 | 5:15 pm
I completely agree with what Barry Arrington did. What a stupid idea from that teacher. It’s of course an insult to law and order to pass such nonsense, and that alone should be enough, but there are other reasons. From the point of view of anyone that’s campaigned to get a serious law changed, it adds insult to injury when the legislature passes this sort of thing and ignores your request. Furthermore, what if there is something really important on the books that is still in debate, like unemployment, health care, or jobs? Congress passes something about butterflies, but ignores these serious issues?
November 2nd, 2011 | 5:22 pm
harry
I would add that the problem with godless secularism is just that: it has no god.
I think its ironic that this bill and the type of mindset behind it is probably more godless than just about any given ‘godless secularist’.
Pope Urban II addressed the multitudes with a Spirit-filled exhortation for them to respond to the Muslim threat realistically. Reportedly the crowds would spontaneously shout in unison a Spirit-filled response: God wills it!
A realistic response would have been a free, secular society committed to individual freedom and liberty. Sadly the world had to wait much longer for that to come about.
November 2nd, 2011 | 7:10 pm
Except, of course, the individual freedom and liberty of the child in the womb, and those of families who have to go to court to keep the nutrition and hydration turned on for a loved one experiencing hospice “care”? I know of a case where Grandma live another year after a family won a legal battle to get her hydration turned back on. It turned out the family was right: Grandma would have died of dehydration, not of any natural affliction, had they not won that fight.
The problem is that individual freedom and liberty is only for those Caesar deems worthy of such things, since in a “atheocracy” there can be no such thing as inalienable rights.
If humanity is merely the product of a mindless, purposeless, natural process that quite accidentally spewed us forth, then we have no more inalienable rights than does a cow. Cows get butchered. As have millions upon millions of innocent human beings under atheistic regimes.
November 2nd, 2011 | 10:05 pm
[...] House measure to “reaffirm” the use of “In God We Trust” as our national motto is a stupid chunk of boob bait to Religious Right voters. Well, he didn’t call it “boob bait.” I did. I am on the Religious [...]
November 3rd, 2011 | 9:24 am
[...] Eyeroll. [...]
November 3rd, 2011 | 10:19 am
Of course such issues were not very important back then because there was no option for artifical nutrition or life support that could be subject to debate. Society, back then, thought it was more important to try to march off to the Middle East or some other place raping and pillaging on the way rather than trying to find a way to extend grandma’s life a few extra years as illnesses got worse and worse.
November 3rd, 2011 | 1:51 pm
Yes, how awful of President Obama to suggest that the motto “E Pluribus Unum” might have some enduring meaning in America. Thank God we’re past that now.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact